Proposal: Spot Votes

[Strider]

Starting fresh, here's my general idea:

Any decision not mentioned in a leaders instructions requires a 7/8's vote of the active citizens within the turnchat. If the leader of the deparment in question is avaible, and agree's to the choice, it is then marked down to a 4/5's of the active citizens within the turnchat. The DP may veto any decision he deems goes against the general will of the citizenry.(forum citizens) *The Council Member at large may also veto decisions made inside of the chat if he/she is present.

No Spot Vote can be taken if roughly 40% or less of the current quorum is present within the chat. (A 16 people quorum, so 7 in the chat)

Any instructions to be changed inside of the chat must have the leaders support and 4/5's of the partcipating citizens support. The DP and Council Member At Large may veto any decision made in the chat.

If a president/Council Member at large does veto a decision within the chat, the topic is either taken to the forums, or the veto is over-rided by either the leader of the department in question DP, or Council Member at Large I veto can only be over-rided if the over ride gets 7/8's support of the citizens present in the chat.

Now, Peri said that this would be good, if we say what can and can not be changed during a turnchat. I think this is a perfect idea, and would make it fairer to everyone. So I'll start with some things:

• If a city Culture Flips to us, a vote may be held to determine what the city will build.
• If a city is captured, and no instructions say to do anything about it. Then a vote may be held to determine what it will build.
• Emergency situations. IE: The Bab's build a Wonder in a city on our bordor, already strong in culture. The nearest city has very little culture, and isn't currently building a culture improvement. I spot vote may be held to change to a cultue improvement.
• Small things, IE: One of our 50 some-odd workers doesn't have anything to do, spot vote is held to determine what it should work on.

Does anyone have any suggestions or comments over this? Also, I've seen little comments over the Council Member at large poistion. Anything about it?

This has already been discussed to some extent here

 

[Chieftess]

I'd also add that spot votes *CAN* be valid if enough people are present. That is, the amount of votes gathered in the turnchat are roughly the same as current polls. (I say current, because attendance flucuates rapidly in the DG sometimes, especially over holidays and summer vacation).

Here's other situations where I think a spot vote could be in order:

* Lowering the science slider when there's 1 turn left on a tech. (this was a rather redundant one in the history of the demogame. Maybe it could be an exception? i.e., assumed, as long as it's logged)

* A Civ makes a demand, or a between-turn trade (embargos, alliances, etc. included) that might not be available at the start of that turn. (i.e., China offers a worker and HBR for Mysticism). We might not get it at the start of the turn for a number of reasons (barbarians attack the Chinese, China trades with another civ, etc.).

For this one, at the very least, the FA should be able to say if they reject or accept those deals. They can't forsee that AI action in a turnchat instruction. (If every possibility were written down, the TC thread would become large and cumbersome).

* Units that are attacking are severely injured and need to be healed when the Military Advisor wants them to continue attacking cities (perhaps assuming the RNG isn't going to turn on them).

* The senate wants to improve more tiles in a city than it can use. (i.e., a far off city can only grow to size 14, and 14 tiles are worked. The senate wants 3 more mountains mined and roaded).

* Wonder Cascades - If a city is building a wonder, and the AI gets it, there should be a vote on what it should build next (even temporarily).

* Votes to clarify citizen discussion and polls. That is, if the discussion and poll left something vague (like, which city to build a wonder in), a spot vote could be taken.

* An AI SOD is moving through our territory, and we might have to take defensive measures, or ask the AI to leave. If they're headed straight for a city with a warrior, and that city has maybe, all workers in its' queue, it might need to be changed to spears to give it protection.

* Planting Spies - Say the FA wants to plant a spy in Russia (provided they're still around come the industrial era). If we try each turn, and it keeps failing, a spot vote could be taken to continue trying (and deplete cash that might be needed elsewhere), or stop trying.

* We see the AI sending a settler towards a potential city site, and have a settler between that secondary site, and the primary site (with another settler behind it). There could be a vote to try and get the settler to the 2nd choice to stop the AI (because it's in a higher danger level of being under AI control), while the 2nd settler heads towards the first choice.

* Voting on optional tech trades. Say the Tech & Trade advisor wants to make 2 trades using 1 tech. To use an example, IW to Babylon for Mysticism, and IW to Russia for MapMaking. The T&T Advisor wants to trade to Babylon first, and Russia 2nd. After the first trade, Russia might not accept the Myst for Map deal. If the citizens really want MapMaking, then there could be a vote to find an alternate deal. (This has happened in the past, mainly in DG2 when making tons of trades in the industrial era).

* Cancelling some budget related action due to other ingame actions. (or, Cancelling some instruction due to influences beyond our control) That is, we have, say 500 gold, and can rush 2 temples. Say Russia demanded 80g, and we could only rush 1 temple. Not following the order to rush 2 temples would be going against the instructions.

 

[Cyc]

Does anyone have any suggestions or comments over this? Also, I've seen little comments over the Council Member at large poistion. Anything about it?

I made a comment about this position in the other thread, but you thought I was talking about the DP. In essance, by electing or appointing someone to this position, they would have to be at every Turn Chat for the whole Turn Chat. Tough position to fill.

 

[Peri]

Originally posted by Strider


Now, Peri said that this would be good, if we say what can and can not be changed during a turnchat. I think this is a perfect idea, and would make it fairer to everyone. So I'll start with some things:

• If a city Culture Flips to us, a vote may be held to determine what the city will build.
• If a city is captured, and no instructions say to do anything about it. Then a vote may be held to determine what it will build.
• Emergency situations. IE: The Bab's build a Wonder in a city on our bordor, already strong in culture. The nearest city has very little culture, and isn't currently building a culture improvement. I spot vote may be held to change to a cultue improvement.
• Small things, IE: One of our 50 some-odd workers doesn't have anything to do, spot vote is held to determine what it should work on.

Just to clarify my own position. I believe that such a proposal may gain a degree of acceptance if the issues that could be dealt with in the TC are limited in number, are specific in nature, fixed in scope and could not have been provided for in the Instruction Thread.
Now to explain by reasoning.

A small number of issues cleary indicates that the vote is intended for emergency use only and not intended as an administrative convenience.

In order to prevent any abuse of the system and confusion the issue subject to vote must be worded and detailed specifically and carefully.

An important concern is that the issues up for vote have a clearly defined and narrow scope. This is to prevent the vote from being used to change policy or fundamentally alter the play of the game.

Finally such votes should only be used when a thorough and detailed instruction could not have settled the matter. If an instruction is vague or incomplete then the DP should have the authority to act with discretion. This will encourage leaders to always be thorough with their instructions.

Sadly none of the issues detailed by Strider meet my own personal criteria. Both points 1 and 2 dont need to be decided by vote. Cities are never captured by accident and so it is up to the military leader to plan ahead. although culture flips can be unexpected and random, the cities likely to flip can be forseen and a simple instruction given.
Points 3 and 4 are far too vague and could be used by an unscrupulous citizen to cover nearly any situation making forum posting unecessary.

 

[Peri]

Originally posted by Chieftess
I'd also add that spot votes *CAN* be valid if enough people are present. That is, the amount of votes gathered in the turnchat are roughly the same as current polls. (I say current, because attendance flucuates rapidly in the DG sometimes, especially over holidays and summer vacation).

Here's other situations where I think a spot vote could be in order:

* Lowering the science slider when there's 1 turn left on a tech. (this was a rather redundant one in the history of the demogame. Maybe it could be an exception? i.e., assumed, as long as it's logged)

Surely this one can be forseen and dealt with in an instruction or as you say assumed.

* A Civ makes a demand, or a between-turn trade (embargos, alliances, etc. included) that might not be available at the start of that turn. (i.e., China offers a worker and HBR for Mysticism). We might not get it at the start of the turn for a number of reasons (barbarians attack the Chinese, China trades with another civ, etc.).

For this one, at the very least, the FA should be able to say if they reject or accept those deals. They can't forsee that AI action in a turnchat instruction. (If every possibility were written down, the TC thread would become large and cumbersome).

That is a good point and certainly warrants further discussion.

* Units that are attacking are severely injured and need to be healed when the Military Advisor wants them to continue attacking cities (perhaps assuming the RNG isn't going to turn on them).

An instruction from the military in the TCIT can deal with when to heal or it can be assumed as common sense not to attack with a redlined unit.

* The senate wants to improve more tiles in a city than it can use. (i.e., a far off city can only grow to size 14, and 14 tiles are worked. The senate wants 3 more mountains mined and roaded).

That is entirely up to the Senate and they should be allowed to make these decisions beacuse they were elected, even if others may not agree with them.

* Wonder Cascades - If a city is building a wonder, and the AI gets it, there should be a vote on what it should build next (even temporarily).

Again an instruction in the TCIT can take care of that.

* Votes to clarify citizen discussion and polls. That is, if the discussion and poll left something vague (like, which city to build a wonder in), a spot vote could be taken.

Surely the Poll or Discussion co ordinator can be relied upon to do his job properly and ensure clarity.

* An AI SOD is moving through our territory, and we might have to take defensive measures, or ask the AI to leave. If they're headed straight for a city with a warrior, and that city has maybe, all workers in its' queue, it might need to be changed to spears to give it protection.

SODs dont appear out of nowhere. An instruction from the MoD can also deal with this. It is also v unlikely that a vote would produce a different result from the DP using his common sense.

* Planting Spies - Say the FA wants to plant a spy in Russia (provided they're still around come the industrial era). If we try each turn, and it keeps failing, a spot vote could be taken to continue trying (and deplete cash that might be needed elsewhere), or stop trying.

Again this is something that can be dealt with adequately in the TCIT.

* We see the AI sending a settler towards a potential city site, and have a settler between that secondary site, and the primary site (with another settler behind it). There could be a vote to try and get the settler to the 2nd choice to stop the AI (because it's in a higher danger level of being under AI control), while the 2nd settler heads towards the first choice.

Why is that necessary?
Settler instructions could again deal with this issue.

* Voting on optional tech trades. Say the Tech & Trade advisor wants to make 2 trades using 1 tech. To use an example, IW to Babylon for Mysticism, and IW to Russia for MapMaking. The T&T Advisor wants to trade to Babylon first, and Russia 2nd. After the first trade, Russia might not accept the Myst for Map deal. If the citizens really want MapMaking, then there could be a vote to find an alternate deal. (This has happened in the past, mainly in DG2 when making tons of trades in the industrial era).

The T&T advisor is elected to make these decisions and anticipate these situations. This is just taking power away from elected officials.

* Cancelling some budget related action due to other ingame actions. (or, Cancelling some instruction due to influences beyond our control) That is, we have, say 500 gold, and can rush 2 temples. Say Russia demanded 80g, and we could only rush 1 temple. Not following the order to rush 2 temples would be going against the instructions.

Surely we dont need a vote for something like this. If the DP is unable to follow an instruction then he can't end of story.


It worries me that too many of these suggestions take away the elected power of our officials when they can be catered for by proper instruction. It is of secondary importance that this game is played 'perfectly'. It is more important that everyone gets the opportunity to participate in the game equally. Gving power to a small number of unelected people whose only qualification is that they are at the chat to influence a broad range of situations is not in the spirit of this game.

 

[Rik Meleet]

* An AI SOD is moving through our territory, and we might have to take defensive measures, or ask the AI to leave. If they're headed straight for a city with a warrior, and that city has maybe, all workers in its' queue, it might need to be changed to spears to give it protection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SODs dont appear out of nowhere. An instruction from the MoD can also deal with this. It is also v unlikely that a vote would produce a different result from the DP using his common sense.
Yes they do come out of nowhere. But I agree with Peri about the DP using his/hers common sense. The DP can ask advice or options and the chatters can give it. But that doesn't require a SV.

* A Civ makes a demand, or a between-turn trade (embargos, alliances, etc. included) that might not be available at the start of that turn. (i.e., China offers a worker and HBR for Mysticism). We might not get it at the start of the turn for a number of reasons (barbarians attack the Chinese, China trades with another civ, etc.).For this one, at the very least, the FA should be able to say if they reject or accept those deals. They can't forsee that AI action in a turnchat instruction. (If every possibility were written down, the TC thread would become large and cumbersome).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is a good point and certainly warrants further discussion.
The only real (although partly) unforeseeable thing; when do trade-possibilities present itself. This includes meeting new (advanced) civs and AI discovering new techs (goody huts). But this shouldn't be solved by a spot vote, but on the forums.

So far I've seen no real convincing arguments to allow Spot_votes.

 

[Chieftess]

Originally posted by Peri

Just to clarify my own position. I believe that such a proposal may gain a degree of acceptance if the issues that could be dealt with in the TC are limited in number, are specific in nature, fixed in scope and could not have been provided for in the Instruction Thread.
Now to explain by reasoning.

A small number of issues cleary indicates that the vote is intended for emergency use only and not intended as an administrative convenience.

In order to prevent any abuse of the system and confusion the issue subject to vote must be worded and detailed specifically and carefully.

An important concern is that the issues up for vote have a clearly defined and narrow scope. This is to prevent the vote from being used to change policy or fundamentally alter the play of the game.

Finally such votes should only be used when a thorough and detailed instruction could not have settled the matter. If an instruction is vague or incomplete then the DP should have the authority to act with discretion. This will encourage leaders to always be thorough with their instructions.

That would've helped those of us who can never comprehend the legal mumbo jumbo needed. So, if I understand this correctly, I'm guessing that in plain English for the Legally Moronic (that's me.), it's:

1. Must be an emergency measure
2. Must have adequate verbage
3. Must be very specific
4. Must require a lack of, or incomplete instructions

I've thought of a few other instances:

* Science research is quickened, with no instructions (or instructions against lowering the science slider.

Situation: We are researching Philosophy in 12 turns at turn 0. Since it isn't forseeable that the rate may drop, the senate says, "Under no circumstances should the science slider be lowered". During the turn change, Babylon researches (or pops from a goody hut), Philosophy. This lowers our time to research to 10 (due to tech depreciation). Babylon in turn, trades it to Russia (maybe lowering it to 8 or 9 turns). We will, in effect, research Philosophy in less than 10 turns, not forseen by the senate.

1. Emergency: The turns until the tech was lowered by circumstances out of our control (namely, the AI, or even a new city, population growth, etc.).

2. Not sure how to word this with excess verbage. "If the 'turns until completion' can be reached by turn 10 quicker than anticipated due to unforseen circumstances (AI popping a goodyhut, trade, city growth, new cities -- essentially, tech depreciation), and there was an instruction against lowering the science rate, the president may call for a spot vote once the 'turns until completion' reaches 1 turn.

3. Simply, There was an instruction against lowering the science rate since it wasn't forseen that it would be lower than 10 turns. (don't know if this is specific enough).

4. The lack of, or incomplete instructions would be not anticipating any free techs or trades that the AI has made between turns that could affect the science rate.

------------

* Enemy SoD suddenly appears at the border, aiming directly for one of our cities. (yes, that *CAN* and *DOES* happen. It means the AI is about to sneak attack us) I believe this has only happened once in the history of the demogame (end of Demogame 2, when China decided to invade us. However, troops within the border isn't always an indication of war. They could be going to another civ to declare war (that has happened in other people's games).

Situation: The yellow civ meets, Russia sometime in the future. They start loading stacks of units on our shores without warning (and they aren't at war). Now knowing if they're going to attack us, or some other civ, it's neccesary to be cautious.

1. The emergency would be a mass of foriegn troops within our border when that civ is at war with no one. (Fortunately or unfortunately, we're in the corner of a continent -- we actually only had 1 game where we were in the middle, but you never know when the AI might actually use a navy... even if rarely).

2. A spot vote may be held in order to defend cities where there is a concentration of AI forces, (due to the random element for sneak attacks and declaring war), unforseen by the military, that are passing, or headed for one of our cities. This includes insertion of defenders in the build queue and/or cities under a possible immediate threat. The same can be true for a single AI defender (typically, a spear, pike, musket, rifleman, infantry, etc.) that's headed for a resource, and the resource needs to be defended.

* Just to note here. If you don't think there's a random element, then you've been in this forum too long. During Firaxis Chats, even Soren Johnson himself said there's random elements for the AI to declare war. On the 2nd issue, I may be confusing this (sending a sole defender or two into your territory) with the PTW AI, since most people move onto the latest patches. (although, we did have a sole Greek infantry waltz through our territory during DG1 before a war ensued).

3. There must be AI troop movement (whether it's a sole defender, or a stack, or group) within our borders and near affected cities, or heading to affected cities to enable this spot vote.

Example 1: A Russian spearman is seen standing on our iron resource, but war hasn't been declared. The president can hold a vote to ask Russia to remove the spearman (normally a FA instruction).

Example 2: The yellow civ starts loading unit after unit (note: Both Egypt and Zulus have early UU, so it's possible they're looking for a Golden Age) onto our borders, but war hasn't been declared. The president can call for a vote to have units defend cities, or change the build queue to "insert" a defender (i.e., if the city only had a warrior) so that the city will be defended if the troops appoach the city. It's still possible that the civ could move out of our borders. (or, vice versa, Russia could send troops through our borders, only to load them onto galleys on the other side.)

*Note: I've seen a screenshot like the above AI action (sending units just to get to a galleon in this case). The AI in Civ3 is dumb, and will attempt the closest path, even if that means parading around our coast.

Example 3: The yellow civ loads units, and they head directly for one of our cities (like our capital). If, after a few turns, it appears that they are headed for a city, units can go to defend that city, and possibly build queues changed temporarily (while preserving the origanal queues).

4. The lack of instructions would be the military advisor not anticipating the random AI element to sneak attack another civ.

BTW, I'm still looking through these. I have to get ready and go eat. I *DO* have a life you know.

 

[ravensfire]

CT - several of your examples of where spot votes should be used are examples of bad instructions.

The research example: Science should be posting a queue of techs to research, even if we don't anticipate finishing a tech in that turn chat. The Senate needs to post flexible instructions - period.

The SoD example - that's a scenario when we probably ought to return to the forums. Our lands are threatened, and you want to spot vote it? Sorry - halt the chat.

Again, something to consider as a standing order from Defense Minister ("If a significant military force threatens our lands (is on our land, or within one turn of our land, and is from a non-friendly nation, please halt the chat.")

The only, ONLY possible scenario that I MIGHT even consider such an abhorent concept is the trade possibilities. Big, BIG might. Even then, I'm not in the same huge rush that some seem to be in to complete the game. There are all kinds of issues that can be caused from that - other instructions being voided due to lack of cash/tech/etc. Any spot vote that overrides or invalidates a posted instruction from the forum should be tossed aside on its face. Far, far too many problems, even in this scenario.

Regardless, I am, and will remain strongly opposed to spot votes. To those that ask about compromise, how about compromising on on-line vs off-line turn chats? It's just as touchy of a subject, how about we re-open that debate as well? No, I'm not proposing it - I'm just pointing out that compromise is not always a good thing. We have not compromised on other issues, I will not compromise on this one.

I have not seen a good reason FOR spot votes. The only justification I've seen that is remotely decent is to cover up for poor instructions. Tough - deal with that problem directly not through hiding it.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Peri]

I am always willing to debate any measures which may improve the game and CT has made some interesting points. However I feel that those mentioned so far can be dealt with through well thought out instructions from the relevant leader. Nevertheless I am intrigued by the T&T scenario where we are forced by the AI to make a choice immediately and are so unable to stop the chat.

 

[ravensfire]

And thus, a good example is brought forth.

I will ask though - do we really need a spot vote for this? I happen to trust that the DP will listen to advice, and act in a reasonable manner. They have the support of the people - at the very least more people support them than any other person in that race.

You have a situation where a small minority of the citizens are present at the chat. Relatively speaking, there isn't a difference between the DP and that small group of people making a decision. To that small group, yes, there is a difference. To a person not in that group, and who does not attend the chat, there is no difference. A minority is trying to make a decision that will affect all of us. I prefer that a leader, elected by more citizens than any other candidate for that position, make the choice.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

I feel I must stand with ravensfire, Peri and President Rik Meleet on this issue.

Pop-up demands and offers, in my opinion should be handled by the President. The President took that position knowing full well that he must plan and act in accordance with the Will of the People. The Trade and Technology Minister should be well aware of possible trades that could arise. The Foreign Affairs Minister should be well aware of demands that could be made in Pop-ups from other nations. All of these Leaders have a responsibility to the Citizens of Fanatica to plan and act according to their Will. The President can take information gathered from his Ministers, as well as advice from the chatters, in making his decision that ultimately keys on th Will of the People. If the President doesn't do this, he is at risk of Impeachment through a Citizen Complaint. That's a serious outcome for a poor decision. No President wants to be Impeached for a poor decision.

But what about the Chatters? If they make a poor decision in their Spot Vote, do we file Citizen Complaints against them all? I think not. I don't even believe any sanctions levied through the Court would be substantial enough to stop them from making another poor decision in the next Turn Chat. Accountability to the Nation is what this is all about, People. The President is responsible for his actions at all times, the Chatters are never responsible legally for their actions. Who's going to tell the Nation of Fanatica "Sorry, tough luck, there is no recourse (as guaranteed in the Constitution) for this decision as no one is accountable. We're sorry this decision just set your nation back into the dark ages, but there's legally nothing we can do about it, nor is there anything we can do about it happening next Turn Chat (or any in the future!)

I say no Spot Votes. Let's give this a final rest. FortyJ! Where's that tombstone/plot marker?

 

[RoddyVR]

when i had read the original argument for Spot votes, i agreed with it. iirc in summary it was - why let the president decide something immediate and big when you have a random representation of the population available at hand.

however, having read this thread and especialy cyc's last post, i have changed my mind. there's no reason for spot checks.
if its bad instructions, the nation suffers and the official that gave the bad instructions wont get ellected again.
if its a demand/trade that has to be decided on the spot, then the president atleast has some accountability for his decision.

 

[zorven]

I too am against spot votes. Peri, Ravensfire, Cyc, and Rik Meleet have pretty much described my stance.

 

[Noldodan]

There's been a lot of talk about spot votes in the past that I have looked at while in favor of spot votes. However, I have changed my viewpoint. In almost all situations in which spot votes would be necessary, the spot vote could be replaced by a standing order for that situation, which would be reposted in the turnchat instruction thread every chat. We could make it a law that standing orders concerning these things be posted every chat by the appropriate Leader.

 

[Chieftess]

Originally posted by Noldodan
There's been a lot of talk about spot votes in the past that I have looked at while in favor of spot votes. However, I have changed my viewpoint. In almost all situations in which spot votes would be necessary, the spot vote could be replaced by a standing order for that situation, which would be reposted in the turnchat instruction thread every chat. We could make it a law that standing orders concerning these things be posted every chat by the appropriate Leader.

Therein lies my fear that this game is going to become one huge legal micromanagement game instead of a demogame. I fear that once again, we'll get SO bogged down by our own ruleset, that our leaders will be looking behind their backs with every character they type. I also fear that instructions are going to become so cumbersome as well, having to anticipate every potential move. Sure, you're going to get players who don't understand the game as well, and they may leave out instructions.

We could make it a law that standing orders concerning these things be posted every chat by the appropriate Leader.

That thing sounds like a death-knell for many new players. (and when I say 'new', I don't mean new to the demogame, I mean new to Civ 3, or the tactics and strategies involved.) New players are going to be utterly confused why a half dozen PI's/CC's (CC's sounds like the medical term ) are being flown in their face just because they didn't know you could check for a certain action. So, if a player who's new to the game is in FA, and just says, "There's no FA instructions" (and, maybe there aren't. Maybe there's no forseeable relations with a civ for the next 10 turns), and that civ makes a demand, are we going to PI/CC the poor player because they "forgot" to foresee a situation?

I just fear that the turn chat instructions thread is going to turn into a Turn Chat Checklist Thread, and if even one possibility is left out, then PIs/CCs will fly.

AFAIK, in DG1, turnchats were meant to be an intregral part of the game, where advisors could help the president if anything went amiss during the 10 turns (thus my mention of "advisory votes" elsewhere, that aren't exactly binding, but more of a "what do you think?" type vote, such as, "Should we press our luck and attack this city with 1 more unit?"). It was also (in term 2 or 3 of the 1st demogame) where citizens could come and watch the proceedings -- maybe even roleplay a bit, maybe even voice their opinions as well. Sometimes, you have a sizable portion of the demgame present, and yes, it HAS happened. There have been games where 40-50% of the active population was in attendance. If advisors and governors can't make minor adjustments to the queue, then what's the point of them attending? If they can't attend, then what's the point of a turnchat at all? I think our problem is that we want to micromanage the laws too much, and we forget about the game itself.


In the words of an old demogamer.. "...It's a GAME! Fun and all that..."

 

[Chieftess]

Ok, how about this question? If spot votes are so bad, then why were they even put in in the first place back in DG1 and 2?

 

[Peri]

Originally posted by Chieftess


Therein lies my fear that this game is going to become one huge legal micromanagement game instead of a demogame. I fear that once again, we'll get SO bogged down by our own ruleset, that our leaders will be looking behind their backs with every character they type. I also fear that instructions are going to become so cumbersome as well, having to anticipate every potential move. Sure, you're going to get players who don't understand the game as well, and they may leave out instructions.

I just fear that the turn chat instructions thread is going to turn into a Turn Chat Checklist Thread, and if even one possibility is left out, then PIs/CCs will fly.

I can honestly say that those fears are unfounded. After we embarked upon this road in the last DG there was not one CC/PI because we were all playing together as a team. The new CC system is specifically oriented to finding a solution to a problem rather than punishing people as with the old PIs. I dont think anyone would receive a CC for making a bad decision in the Instruction Thread. We are not trying to play the game 'perfectly' are we; we are just here to have fun.

 

[Strider]

Originally posted by Peri


I can honestly say that those fears are unfounded. After we embarked upon this road in the last DG there was not one CC/PI because we were all playing together as a team. The new CC system is specifically oriented to finding a solution to a problem rather than punishing people as with the old PIs. I dont think anyone would receive a CC for making a bad decision in the Instruction Thread. We are not trying to play the game 'perfectly' are we; we are just here to have fun.

Your doing a splendid job on doing the opposite in that.

Don't expect much from me on my issue for acouple of days though. My girlfriend had a car accident and is hurt pretty badly, I'll be spending most of my time in the hospital with her, but once she gets better, expect a full onslaught from me. Untill then, hold it up for me CT. She's the last thing I have, sense all of my family is dead. If you don't hear from me again, expect the worst.

 

[ravensfire]

Oh crud - I'm terribly sorry to hear that Strider. My thoughts and prayers go out to you both.

St. John's?

PM me if you need anything

-- Ravensfire

 

[Strider]

Yeah, St. John's.

Back to the discussion.

IMHO, as recent events have solidified my point more, I must once more tell you that what you are asking from our leaders is impossible. No human being can possibly do this. Your asking for a perfect balance of details/flexability, which can not be achieved, and in there failing to do the impossible, you call them lazy. Also, as you can see, it force's the president into a desperate act, which cause's even more trouble.